Telangana High Court

Smt. Lakshmi Parvathi vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 9 September, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                       CRL.R.C.No.410 of 2021

O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order of

the Principal Special Judge for the Trial of SPE and ACB Cases,

Hyderabad, passed in C.C.SR.No.326 of 2005, dated 03.05.2021,

whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the private complaint

filed by the petitioner, under Section 190 (1)(a) read with Section 200

of Cr.P.C., against the 2nd respondent/proposed accused, seeking to

refer the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the Director

General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, for investigation and

report, was dismissed.

Brief facts of the private complaint filed by the

petitioner/complainant against the 2nd respondent/accused are that

the petitioner is the widow of late N.T.Rama Rao, founder of Telugu

Desam Party and former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. The 2nd

respondent was born in an agricultural family, his father possessed

only a few acres of land and could not afford to send him to a

convent school. The 2nd respondent studied in an Elementary School

at Seshapuram and subsequently in Municipal High School,

Tirupathi. The 2nd respondent completed his graduation from S.V.

Arts College, Tirupathi in 1972 and M.A. from S.V.University,

Tirupathi in 1974. He dabbled in local politics and was ultimately

elected as an M.L.A. for the first time in 1978 from Chandragiri

GSD, J Crlrc_410_2021

Constituency. As an M.L.A., the 2nd respondent used to earn a

salary of Rs.350/- per month, subsequently on 02.12.1980 he became

a Minister and held different portfolios from 02.12.1980 to

09.01.1983. As a Minister, his salary was Rs.2,500/- per month,

therefore, according to the petitioner, the total income of the 2nd

respondent was Rs.11,550/- from March, 1978 to December, 1980

i.e., Rs.350/- per month for 33 months and Rs.62,500/- from

02.12.1980 to 09.01.1983 i.e., @ Rs.2,500/- per month for 25 months,

thus, his total income was Rs.74,050/-.

It is also stated in the complaint that the 2nd respondent joined

the Telugu Desam Party in 1983, he was the General Secretary of

Telugu Desam Party. The 2nd respondent has filed Additional

Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.7606 of 1988 and informed the High

Court that his annual income on agriculture was Rs.36,000/- per

annum. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the total income of

the 2nd respondent from known sources during 1983 to 1989 was

Rs.2,16,000/- i.e., Rs.36,000/- for six years. The 2nd respondent

established a Public Limited Company in 1992 as Heritage Foods

Limited and as per the prospects of the said company, it was stated

that the 2nd respondent was not associated with any industry or

business activity. As a Director of Heritage Foods for a period of

five months, the 2nd respondent has drawn a salary of Rs.20,000/-

per month i.e., from 01.07.1994 to 12.12.1994, thus his income during

the said period was Rs.1,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent was elected as

GSD, J Crlrc_410_2021

M.L.A. in 1989 and he drawn salary of Rs.650/- per month from

1989 to 1994, thereby he earned Rs.39,000/- for 60 months. The 2nd

respondent was again elected as M.L.A. in the year 1995 and became

Revenue Minister, that he has drawn salary of Rs.2,500/- per month

as Revenue Minister and became Chief Minister from 01.09.1995.

It is further stated that the 2nd respondent gave a declaration

before the Speaker of Andhra Pradesh Assembly and shown his

investment in Heritage Foods as Rs.76,15,000/- and other

investments as Rs.3.07 lakhs and cash of Rs.1.28 lakhs and utilized

shares of Rs.41.55 lakhs in his own name, apart from advances of

Rs.22.45 lakhs making his total assets as Rs.144.50 lakhs in his name.

The 2nd respondent also declared that his agricultural lands

admeasuring Ac.26.43 cents in Nindali Village, Balaiah Palli Mandal,

Nellore district, and a house in plot No.1310, Road No.65, Jubilee

Hills, admeasuring 1225 square yards and one more site/building

situated at Sri Venkateswara Cooperative Housing Society situated

at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring 600 square

yards. In addition, the 2nd respondent also shown one Ambassador

car worth Rs.1,00,000/-, thus the total assets declared by the 2nd

respondent were to the tune of Rs.5,36,89,707/-. The petitioner

further alleged that the 2nd respondent has shown assets in the name

of his son Master Lokesh at Rs.2,45,16,956/-, thus combined assets of

the 2nd respondent and his minor son shown in the year 1999 were at

Rs.7,82,06,663/-.

GSD, J Crlrc_410_2021

It is also mentioned in the complaint that the 2nd respondent

was once again elected as M.L.A. in the year 1999 and continued as

Chief Minister from 1999 to May, 2004, thus the known source of

income of the 2nd respondent during 1978 to March, 2003 was

Rs.7,38,400/-. The petitioner has furnished the details in a tabular

form and alleged that the 2nd respondent as per his own statement

and as per the statement of his father-in-law did not receive any

dowry from his father-in-law. Therefore, as per his own declaration

before the Election Returning Officer, the 2nd respondent got assets

worth Rs.1,50,85,066/- and the assets in the name of his minor son

were Rs.2,45,16,956/-, but he could not have built a house in Plot

No.1310 with his modest salary as an M.L.A. and as a Minister or

with his paltry agricultural income. The 2nd respondent could not

have invested Rs.76,15,000/- in Heritage Foods, therefore these

assets have been obviously acquired by the 2nd respondent with his

ill-gotten income during his tenure as a public servant from 1978 to

1983. The petitioner further claimed that during the tenure of the 2nd

respondent as Revenue Minister and as the then Chief Minister, the

assets of his wife and assets of Heritage Foods shown an exponential

increase. The 2nd respondent purchased Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.51

of Madinaguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal in the name of his

mother Smt. N.Ammanamma for Rs.35.00 lakhs, thereafter got the

property transferred in the name of his son by way of gift.

Therefore, it is clear the 2nd respondent got the property with his

GSD, J Crlrc_410_2021

own funds. The petitioner having furnished the details of assets as

declared by the 2nd respondent in separate tabular form, submitted

that the 2nd respondent acquired assets worth Rs.20,99,01,725/- in

his name, in the name of his wife and son against his known sources

of income. Therefore, he is liable for prosecution under the

provisions of Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner lodged a written

complaint, dated 18.11.2004 to the Director General, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Hyderabad and in spite of lapse of three months, there was

no response from the Director General. The petitioner has claimed

that the 2nd respondent was public servant within the meaning of

Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the case

involves collection of many documents from various Government

Agencies, examination of many high ranking public servants and

public officials and as such, the investigation can only be done by a

Team of Police officials specially constituted for this purpose.

Therefore, the petitioner filed the private complaint to refer the

complaint to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Hyderabad, under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and

report. However, the Court below having considered the entire

material available on record dismissed the said private complaint by

its order, dated 03.05.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner/complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

GSD, J Crlrc_410_2021

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant

and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st

respondent/State and perused the record.

Reiterating the contents of the complaint, learned Counsel for

the petitioner would submit that the order under revision is contrary

to law, erroneous and incorrect and that the Court below passed the

order without application of mind and non-consideration of relevant

facts and hence the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the

process and procedure contemplated under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

He further submits that the Court below ought to have considered

that under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. a Magistrate may direct the

police to register and investigate a case if a cognizable offence is

disclosed from the averments made in the complaint; that the

allegations made in the complaint would prima facie disclose the

cognizable offence and the Court below conducting the proceedings

before it in proper perspective ought to have directed for the

registration of crime. In support of his contentions, he relied upon

the judgment of the Apex Court in Srinivas Gundluri and others v.

Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation and others1 and the

judgment of the Karnataka High Court in C.T.Ravi v. State of

Karnataka2.

(2010) 8 SCC 206

(2020) SCC Online Kar. 1746

GSD, J Crlrc_410_2021

As seen from the record, the petitioner herein filed a private

complaint under Section 190 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 200

of Cr.P.C. against the 2nd respondent seeking to refer the same to the

Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. During the

pendency of the private complaint, the 2nd respondent filed

Crl.M.P.No.236 of 2005 in C.C.SR.No.326 of 2005 before the Court

below, seeking permission to place certain judgments of the Andhra

Pradesh High Court, Delhi High Court and Apex Court, relating to

the same allegations made in the complaint and to point out the

alleged discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complaint and

documents annexed thereto to establish that the complaint is bereft

of prima facie material and the petitioner has not made out any prima

facie case for seeking a direction to refer the matter under Section

156 (3) of Cr.P.C., and the same was dismissed by the Court below

on 14.03.2005. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the 2nd respondent

herein filed W.P.No.5570 of 2005 before this Court and by an order

dated 17.03.2005, this Court granted interim stay of all further

proceedings in CC.SR.No.326 of 2005. The petitioner herein filed

W.V.M.P.No. 934 of 2005, to vacate the said interim stay, which was

dismissed and the interim stay granted was made absolute vide

order dated 06.06.2005. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the vacate

stay petition, the petitioner herein preferred W.A.No.1650 of 2005,

which was disposed of on 19.09.2005. While things stood thus, in

view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of

GSD, J Crlrc_410_2021

Road Agency Private Limited and another v. C.B.I.3, the Court

below, though the stay order was made absolute in W.P.No.5570 of

2005, on 06.06.2005, observed that the stay was not extended vide

separate speaking order, hence, the same was deemed to have been

vacated and accordingly, had issued notices to the petitioner vide

docket order, dated 26.04.2019. The petitioner herein appeared

before the Court below and pursued the proceedings through her

Counsel. However, it is contended that the Court below without

considering the allegations made in the complaint, erroneously

dismissed the same vide order dated 03.05.2021.

In the instant case, as it transpires from the record that the

main allegation in the complaint against the 2nd respondent is that

he has acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of

income derived by him as M.L.A., Minister, Chief Minister, Director

of Heritage Foods India Limited apart from agricultural income and

shares in Banks and other companies and financial institutions. The

Court below gave a finding that there was a rivalry between the

petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein. In paragraph No.27 of the

impugned order, the Court below observed as under:-

"While keeping the above observations in my mind, I am of the sincere opinion that in view of the rivalry between the complainant and proposed accused, the possibility of complainant filing a complaint only for the political reasons also cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in the light of my above observations, it shows that the complainant, who lodged the complaint is not able to produce any

(2018) 16 SCC 299

GSD, J Crlrc_410_2021

proof about the actual prices paid by accused and his family members for acquiring the assets referred by the complainant in the present complaint. She has mentioned the values of the properties as mentioned by the accused in various proceedings, but they are not reflecting the actual prices. To constitute, an offence under Section 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act, there must be a prima facie material to believe that the accused possessed the disproportionate assets to the known sources of his income, but the said information is not available in the present complaint. The complainant did not comply with the mandatory requirement of filing affidavit along with the complaint. Therefore, I see no grounds to forward the complaint to DG, ACB under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed."

After considering the material placed before it and also having

regard to the judgments of the Apex Court with regard to the

forwarding of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the

Court below found that there was no information with regard to the

possession of the disproportionate assets to the known sources of

income by the 2nd respondent and that there was no sufficient

material to proceed against the 2nd respondent.

Further, while dismissing the complaint, the Court below has

considered all the grounds raised before it and also recorded cogent

and convincing reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said that challenge is

on new or fresh grounds. In the absence of any fresh or new grounds

and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this